Delhi High Court
Mohinder Kumar Verma vs Ld.District Judge-I & Session ... on 18 May, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18th May, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 1027/2010
MOHINDER KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajat Aneja and Mr. S. Sethu,
Advs.
versus
LD.DISTRICT JUDGE-I & SESSION JUDGE,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Urvashi Malhotra, Adv. for
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
+ W.P.(C) 1027/2010
1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has sought quashing of
order dated 28.10.2010 passed by respondent no. 2, where the right of
cross-examination of the petitioner was closed in respect of the
witnesses produced by the department.
2. Petitioner had filed an application seeking adjournment on the
ground that he had requested the Department to provide legal
assistance in the matter, however, that request was declined by the ld.
District & Sessions Judge.
3. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal against the said order
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on administrative side,
however the same was also been declined.
4. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a W.P. (C) no. 13907 on 27.01.2010,
after that he submitted before the ld. District & Sessions Judge that
the aforesaid Writ Petition not yet been listed for hearing, however,
the same is likely to be listed soon and prayed that his Departmental
Enquiry be adjourned and be taken only after the Writ Petition is
disposed of. Finding no ground to adjourn the enquiry, the
application of the petitioner was dismissed.
5. It is recorded in the impugned order dated 28.01.2010 that
CW-3 Prem Narayan Verma has been examined in chief on
03.11.2009. Thereafter, the enquiry proceedings were listed on
19.12.2009 and 06.01.2010, on which dates adjournment was sought
by the petitioner. CW-3 has been recalled for cross-examination,
however, the petitioner / delinquent official had declined to cross-
examine this witness on the ground that his petition is pending
adjudication. In that eventuality, the opportunity to cross-examine
this witness was closed. Additionally, right to cross-examine CW-4,
Ravi Kumar, LDC, Admn.-II, Tis Hazari also been closed.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submitted that if a
Legal Assistant is not possible, then at least he should be given a law
graduate because of the fact the Presenting Officer is a Law Graduate,
though enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, however not a
practicing advocate.
7. Orally, on 16.05.2012, respondents were directed to produce a
list of the employees working in District Courts, who are Law
Graduates. Pursuant thereto, a list of Law Graduates from cadre of
Stenographer, UDC/Reader, Sr. Assistant / Reader and Assistant /
Reader has been produced and they are around 65 in number.
8. Ld. Counsel on instruction has submitted that opportunity be
granted to chose anyone from the list and same shall be conveyed to
the Disciplinary Authority / Enquiry Authority.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order
dated 28.01.2010 is set aside.
10. On furnishing the details of defence assistant, Enquiry Officer
shall give opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the above two
witnesses i.e. CW-3 and CW-4.
11. Accordingly, ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi is directed to
spare the said Officer for this purpose.
12. Instant petition stands disposed of on the above terms.
13. Consequently interim order passed on 09.02.2010 in CM No.
2145/2010 and thereafter made absolute vide order dated 08.07.2010
stands vacated.
14. In view of above, CM No.12137/2010 doesn't require further
adjudication and stands dispose of.
15. Parties are directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on
01.06.2012.
16. Dasti to both the parties.
SURESH KAIT, J
MAY 18, 2012/jg
